Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 469 (MP)

Tarun Bahekar v. State of M. P.

2023-04-06

ANAND PATHAK

body2023
ORDER 1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- "(i) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records, files of the proceeding for its kind perusal. (ii) To quash the impugned order dated 28.2.2023 passed by respondent No.3 by a writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. (iii) To command the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Police Constable (GD) and to grant him all consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salary together with interest @ 12% per annum by a writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. (iv) Any other relief, order, direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the cases and in the interest of justice." 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (GD) but on the basis of a case registered against him for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 34 of IPC vide Crime No. 336 /20201 at police station Kirnapur, Distt. Balaghat, he has been found unfit for police services vide order dated 28.2.2023 passed by Superintendent of Police, Distt. Dindori. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case which was registered against him trial was held and vide judgment dated 6th February, 2023 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat the acquittal has been recorded in favour of the petitioner. Allegation levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner could not be appreciated by the trial Court and prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt about the allegation so levelled. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case be considered in the light of the clean acquittal recorded in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, allegation in the trial do not contain moral turpitude. He prayed for thoughtful consideration in the light of judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 . 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 6. (2016) 8 SCC 471 . 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the nature of allegations and the impugned order it appears that it would be a futile exercise to keep the petition pending. Therefore, matter is heard and disposed of finally. 7. From the contents of charges levelled against the petitioner it appears that prime allegations is in respect of offences under sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 34 of IPC and contents of FIR further reveals that role of petitioner is confined to inflict lathi blow to complainant Omprakash who sustained simple injuries under the neck. Dispute apparently precipitated at the spur of moment and, therefore, no pre-meditated thought was involved. Besides that, no allegations of moral turpitude exists prima facie against the petitioner. No other allegation of moral turpitude stares at petitioner. 8. Besides that, case of the petitioner has not been considered from the vantage point that petitioner himself disclosed this fact before the authorities and the fact that finding given by SP, Dindori appears to be erroneous when it contends that petitioner forming unlawful assembly caused maar peet to the victim and his family. It was apparently a dispute precipitated suddenly. Therefore, thoughtful consideration is required to be given over the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Therefore, while setting aside the order dated 28.2.2023 (Annexure-P/5) passed by S.P. Dindori, matter is remanded back for reconsideration before the same authority with an expectation that matter shall be considered from all aspects including the mandate of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and thereafter, ensure passing of appropriate order. This is made clear that this Court has not given the opinion on merits of the case and case of the petitioner shall be decided on its own merits. 10. Needless to say that same be considered and decided at an expeditious note preferably within two months' from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before the authorities. 11. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.